1
   

Universal Health Care Canada Style

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jul, 2004 09:32 am
Well I am going to amend my previous statement of "by every standard" the US Health Care system is the best in the world to be that my opinion is (and supported by the links I posted) that "by the standards most appreciated by people" the U.S. health care is the best in the world.

Being pretty much a nationalist, I would hope others would feel the same way about health care in their own countries too. But as was stated in one of the links I posted: If you were really sick and needed top notch care, would you go to Columbia or Denmark? No. If you had the option, you would be more likely to come to the U.S.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jul, 2004 09:34 am
Had i the option, in such a case, i would go to Denmark.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jul, 2004 09:38 am
Well Danish doctors have to get their patients from somewhere I guess.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jul, 2004 09:39 am
Quote:
canada has the most diversified population in the world,


Question

How do you figure?
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jul, 2004 09:50 am
mcg : the united nations annual statistics yearbook gives an enourmous amount of information. i borrowed one from our local library a couple of years ago; makes for fascinating reading(if you like about 500 pages of reproduced computer-printouts), tried to borrow it again recently; it had disappeared - unfortunately. i could probably get access at our university library. using the internet, i assume my old computer would get overwhemed with data. hbg ... if anyone has easy access to a university library - through work - , it would make it easy to retrieve the information.
0 Replies
 
Jer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jul, 2004 09:50 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Well I am going to amend my previous statement of "by every standard" the US Health Care system is the best in the world to be that my opinion is (and supported by the links I posted) that "by the standards most appreciated by people" the U.S. health care is the best in the world.

Being pretty much a nationalist, I would hope others would feel the same way about health care in their own countries too. But as was stated in one of the links I posted: If you were really sick and needed top notch care, would you go to Columbia or Denmark? No. If you had the option, you would be more likely to come to the U.S.


Why wouldn't you say - "I think that the US Health Care system is the best in the world" and just leave everyone else's opinion out of it unless you've got numbers??

As far as you being a nationalist explaining why you think your country's healthcare is the best...using that rationale would mean that you think your country is the best at everything. Because you're not 'thinking' about it at all, you're just saying "I'm an American therefore all things American are best."

If all Americans had an attitude that because it is American it is automatically the best, things would never get better. That attitude reminds me of the old guy at family reunions who can never be wrong - but always is.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jul, 2004 09:51 am
Foxfyre wrote:
If you were really sick and needed top notch care, would you go to Columbia or Denmark? No. If you had the option, you would be more likely to come to the U.S.


But perhaps, Foxfyre, you should better go to Danmark before you are ill:

Quote:
A number of preventive health schemes are available to people resident in Denmark free of charge.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jul, 2004 10:03 am
No Jer, I disagree that thinking your country is best at something is a blanket commendation for everything. Thinking your country is the best there is also is not a condemnation of anybody else for that matter. I just happen to think people are happiest if they are happy with where they are. Nimh and I have already had this discussion in which I know my views here are very different from most Europeans and I don't know, but I think might be different from most Canadians.

Like everywhere else, the United States has much to commend it and much to condemn it. When I say my country is "best" I am really saying I can't imagine liking anywhere else as much. And yes, I would wish that feeling for everybody which is not to say that I want everybody to come HERE.

WHO gives the U.S. pretty much a bum rap on its health care, but WHO is an arm of the U.N. that gives the U.S. pretty much a bum rap on everything. While not disputing WHO's numbers, I also am looking at other factors, sources, data etc. before I'm willing to swallow whole hog criticism that may or may not be warranted.

Still, I bitch about issues with our health care as much as the next person, and there is no way that I think it can't be improved a good deal.
0 Replies
 
Jer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jul, 2004 10:12 am
Fox,

When your rationale for thinking your country's health-care system is the best in the world is that you're a "nationalist", then one would have to assume that you would think your country was the best in every aspect because it's YOUR country.

While I think it's great to be happy with what you've got, when debating the pros and cons of different systems and countries throughout the world, it isn't particularly productive to sit there and say "we're the best because I'm from here".

I mean, come on, if that were the case then any time we were talking about things that have to do with parties, sides, or countries, we could just write in your opinion without you even being there.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jul, 2004 10:17 am
That's a wonderful thought, though . . . Fox, could you leave the room, please?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jul, 2004 10:18 am
Well I'm sorry. I didn't mean to upset anybody. I keep forgetting personal observations and comments are unacceptable when the U.S. is supposed to look bad. Smile

Ya'll have a good day. I do have to get back to work.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jul, 2004 10:25 am
Bye . . . don't let the door hit ya in the ass . . .
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jul, 2004 11:39 am
Foxfyre wrote:
WHO gives the U.S. pretty much a bum rap on its health care, but WHO is an arm of the U.N. that gives the U.S. pretty much a bum rap on everything.

Oh my God, did you actually ever even look at the WHO data? I mean, come on - I even slipped you a tip on how to use those exact WHO data to actually make your case, and everything!

You didn't even look, did you. As in, whooo, WHO, a UN organisation, must be bogus, why bother -- I'll just assert whatever I feel like asserting -- why bother looking up actual data. After all, I claimed some stuff about Danish health care without [nimh is guessing] knowing scrap-all about what it's actually like, too. Rolling Eyes

Well, since Fox cant seem to be bothered I'll just put my advocate-for-the-devil suit on, myself, and point y'all to one of them evil UN stats here:

WHO Estimates of Health Personnel

You will notice that the US has both more physicians and more nurses per capita than the UK, Canada, or the Netherlands.

Germany, France and Denmark have more physicians per inhabitant than the US does, but fewer nurses.

All in all, not a bad score for the States there.

Of course - <pulling himself out of his advocate suit> - if the US actually has more doctors and nurses and all that, but still cant seem to get the American health indicators up to France's, the UK's or Canada's numbers, then I would argue that apparently, those resources are uneffectively distributed. Look up Belarus and Uzbekistan and you'll see they have even more physicians and nurses - and those dont seem to be all too effective. Having physicians is great - but its the effect they have on national health that actually says something about the effectiveness of the system.

Back to the case of America, I can imagine what the problem is, too. If many doctors work for expensive, luxury-care private companies rather than for widely affordable, public or collective insurance-covered services, then most of those who need medical care most (the poor, workers in high-risk jobs, etc) will actually not be able to afford their help ... If many of the available doctors provide services that only a rich substratum of society can afford, their contribution to national health quickly becomes less.

For example - hypothetically speaking - if you have 100 doctors but 50 of them work for the 30% richest inhabitants who can afford their services, and the remaining 70% of the population has to rely on the remaining 50 doctors, then the average citizen's access to a doctor's services will be worse than if you have just 90 doctors who can be afforded by all. (Yes, I calculated that out ;-)).
0 Replies
 
Jer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jul, 2004 03:29 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Well I'm sorry. I didn't mean to upset anybody. I keep forgetting personal observations and comments are unacceptable when the U.S. is supposed to look bad. Smile

Ya'll have a good day. I do have to get back to work.


If you were refering to me - don't worry...I'm not upset in the least.

I find that your input when you're thinking is a lot more interesting and valuable than when you're just typing in what country you come from...And I like my reading to be interesting!! Wink
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jul, 2004 03:50 pm
I spent three years in the United States Army Medical Corps. After separation, i worked in the civilian health care field for a while, before leaving that field forever from sheer disgust.

The American health care delivery system is extravagently overpriced. This is because clinics and hospitals are increasingly the property of large corporations whose sole purpose is to improve the bottom line. These corporations, and their counterparts in the pharmaceutical industry pump millions into political campaign funds. Doctor's practice privileges are overseen by county medical boards, made up of other doctors, who decide on a case by case basis what the character of a physician charged with malprice is. There are no national guidelines on acceptable practice; a doctor who has his privileges revoked in one county can move to another, or to another state, and begin practice anew. The corporate nature of medical care delivery means that there are too few clinics, or none at all, in poor neighborhoods. Therefore, the medical costs to all of us are greatly inflated by the understandable practice of medicaid recipients in treating hospital emergency rooms as though they were outpatient clinics. The American Medical Association continues to use its influence with medical schools to restrict the number of enrollments.

The health care delivery system in the United States is a travesty of any contention that it is "the best system in the world." It costs far too much, lacks basic government oversight of costs, procedures and physician competence, and it is not moving toward improvement, but toward squeezing the most dollars out of the "customer" at the lowest cost to the corporation. Drug company representatives pay kickbacks, and offer expensive incentives; they justifiably claim that this is forced on them, because the ancillary staff in hospitals and clinics can assure they never get in to see a doctor, unless they have bought lunch or other amenities for that staff. Insurance companies will drop doctors like a hot rock if it can be shown that they did not take precautions available to them in treating a patient who later sues, so doctors order unnecessary procedures and tests to assure that they don't lose their coverage when they need it most.

The American health care delivery system is an ugly joke. No amount of patriotic zeal and hollow praise can change the fact that we are ripped off on a daily basis so that corporations can pay hefty dividends to share holders, and the corporate executives can live the life styles they have always dreamed of becoming accustomed to . . .
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jul, 2004 04:04 pm
I remember when my mother-in-law spent one week in the hospital, the bill came to over $130,000. Heck, how many in this world can afford to pay these prices? I'm sure Medicare didn't pay the full bill, but Set is right about our screwed up health care system in the US.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jul, 2004 01:28 pm
Quote:
"The equivalent of 390 jumbo jets full of people are dying each year due to likely preventable, in-hospital medical errors, making this one of the leading killers in the U.S."

[...]

Among the findings in the HealthGrades Patient Safety in American Hospitals study are as follows:

About 1.14 million patient-safety incidents occurred among the 37 million hospitalizations in the Medicare population over the years 2000-2002.
Of the total 323,993 deaths among Medicare patients in those years who developed one or more patient-safety incidents, 263,864, or 81 percent, of these deaths were directly attributable to the incident(s).
One in every four Medicare patients who were hospitalized from 2000 to 2002 and experienced a patient-safety incident died.
The 16 patient-safety incidents accounted for $8.54 billion in excess in-patient costs to the Medicare system over the three years studied. Extrapolated to the entire U.S., an extra $19 billion was spent and more than 575,000 preventable deaths occurred from 2000 to 2002.
Patient-safety incidents with the highest rates per 1,000 hospitalizations were failure to rescue, decubitus ulcer and postoperative sepsis, which accounted for almost 60 percent of all patient-safety incidents that occurred.
Overall, the best performing hospitals (hospitals that had the lowest overall patient safety incident rates of all hospitals studied, defined as the top 7.5 percent of all hospitals studied) had five fewer deaths per 1000 hospitalizations compared to the bottom 10th percentile of hospitals. This significant mortality difference is attributable to fewer patient-safety incidents at the best performing hospitals.
Fewer patient safety incidents in the best performing hospitals resulted in a lower cost of $740,337 per 1,000 hospitalizations as compared to the bottom 10th percentile of hospitals.

[...]

"If all the Medicare patients who were admitted to the bottom 10th percentile of hospitals from 2000 to 2002 were instead admitted to the "best" hospitals, approximately 4,000 lives and $580 million would have been saved," said Dr. Collier.

Patient's safety in American Hospitals


However, I don't think that figures from other countries will be that much better.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jul, 2004 01:34 pm
You guys are making more and more good arguments for the government getting out of health care you know. We had very good health care at very affordable prices whether people had insurance or not UNTIL the government decided to get heavily involved in the 1960's. Since that time health care costs have steadily spiraled upward.

What makes anybody think we would do any better with the government taking over MORE of it?
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jul, 2004 01:37 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
What makes anybody think we would do any better with the government taking over MORE of it?



The experience of living in a country with a government-funded and partially government-administered health system is what makes me think that. I review medical billing nearly every day - Canajun and American - and I talk to the recipients of the treatment creating the billing. I know that if anything happened to me in the U.S., I'd make sure I was transported back to Canada for treatment asap.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jul, 2004 01:39 pm
Foxfyre wrote:


What makes anybody think we would do any better with the government taking over MORE of it?


Experiences of 120 years.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 07:29:57